UNITED STATES v. BAHRI DRISHTI

The above defendant has moved for relief from his sentence under former Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the ground that at the time of sentencing, the special parole term of fifteen years I imposed was unauthorized. I deny the motion.

As to an offense committed prior to the effective date [of the 1984 repeal], the preexisting law will apply as to all substantive matters including the imposable sentence.

Were any other approach taken, the result would be a one-way ratchet in sentencing even where not intended by Congress and inappropriate to the factual situation involved in a particular case. Enhancements of criminal penalties by enactments after a crime is committed are, of course, prohibited as ex post factor laws. Yet any subsequent reductions in penalties for later-committed offenses would redound to the benefit of the earlier violator. Thus, if Congress shifts the sanction structure from one aspect to another, the very fact of change would operate to the benefit of earlier violators. They would only be liable to penalties which were available at the time of the offense, at the time of sentencing, and at the time when the motion for relief from that sentence is filed.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.